2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Kristal L. Phillips, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, arguing that a custodial order should govern and avoid the termination of her parental rights and that the father did not meet his burden to prove abandonment.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we affirm, finding the father established a ground for termination, that the mother abandoned the child as is defined in Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2024), and that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monroe County, Michael Carpenter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral arguments by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            Parks Finishing C7, LLC and Parks Finishing C8, LLC claim the district court incorrectly interpreted the termination provisions of two manure easement agreements when it concluded that an eighteen-month termination option applied to the initial and continuing terms of the agreements.  On appeal, they contend the court erred (1) by applying the last preceding antecedent rule because the termination clause is unambiguous; (2) in the manner it applied the rule even if it is applicable; and (3) by interpreting the termination clause in such a way as to render part of it superfluous.  OPINION HOLDS: Because an exception to the last precedent antecedent rule applies, the district court properly applied that exception, and the district court’s interpretation did not make any part of the termination clause superfluous, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J. (2 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We accept the State’s concession that the district court erred in ordering the defendant complete sex-offender treatment and reverse and remand with instructions.  As to his abuse of discretion claim, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Angie Johnston, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court’s denial of her petition to terminate a father’s parental rights to their child under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2024).  She claims the court erred in determining she failed to prove the father abandoned the child and termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests.  The mother also challenges the court’s order denying her counsel access to child-in-need-of-assistance files involving the father’s other child.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we reverse the district court’s order and remand with directions to enter an order terminating the father’s parental rights consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to all three of her children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and as to two of the children under section 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (i).  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the juvenile court properly terminated the mother’s parental rights.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the dispositional order confirming the adjudications in child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings involving her six- and one-year-old daughters.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal termination of their parental rights to four and three children respectively.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of parental rights to be in the children’s best interests, and the children could not return to either parent’s care at the time of trial.  The court did not err in declining to invoke a permissive exception in either parent’s case.  The father’s close-bond exception claim was waived.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Ashley Beisch, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.  She claims the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to her custody at the time of the termination trial; the juvenile court’s best-interests determination was in error; and the juvenile court should have granted her a six-month extension.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm because the grounds for termination were supported by clear and convincing evidence, the juvenile court was sufficiently detailed in its best-interests analysis, and there is no credible evidence that the mother would be able to resume custody of the child at the end of a six-month extension.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County, Ann M. Gales, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son.  The father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claims termination is not in the child’s best interests, requests an extension of time for reunification services, asserts a permissive exception should be applied to preclude termination, and argues the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.    

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Sandy, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (18 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to three children, arguing that termination is not in the children’s best interests.  The oldest child also appeals the termination of the mother’s parental rights to him.  He argues that (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process because of the delay in the appointment of counsel separate from his guardian ad litem; (2) the State failed to prove a statutory ground for termination; and (3) the juvenile court should have applied one of the permissive statutory exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court.  The oldest child was not deprived of due process or the effective assistance of counsel at the June 2025 termination hearing.  The State proved a statutory ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024) as to the oldest child because he could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.  And we decline to apply any permissive statutory exception to forgo termination of the mother’s rights to the oldest child.  As for the mother’s appeal, termination is in the children’s best interests because, although the children share strong bonds with the mother, she cannot provide the care and stability that each child requires.  We thus affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025) were proved as to both parents, termination is in the children’s best interests, and another argument was not preserved, we affirm the termination of their parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, Joseph L. Tofilon, Judge (temporary removal hearing) and Joseph McCarville (dispositional hearing), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother challenges the juvenile court’s temporary and dispositional orders granting removal of her four children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the juvenile court’s dispositional order moots the mother’s challenge to temporary removal, we do not reach that claim of error.  As for the dispositional order, we affirm the juvenile court’s order given the potential risk for adjudicatory harm if the children return to the mother at this time.